The arithmetic of gun control

Aiming to quell heated national debate about gun control with factual answers, two UC Irvine mathematicians have designed parameters to measure how to best prevent both one-on-one killings and mass shootings in the United States. Their paper appears Friday in the journal PLoS ONE.

"It's time to bring a scientific framework to this problem," said lead author Dominik Wodarz, a mathematical biologist who works on disease and evolutionary dynamics. His co-author and wife, Natalia Komarova, a mathematician who studies biomedical and social trends, added: "Can we design a rational way to argue about guns?"

Both were appalled not just by the December shooting deaths of 20 youngsters and eight adults in Newtown, Conn., but also by the bitterly emotional dispute over weapons that erupted anew. They decided to put their professional expertise to work.

"This debate cannot be settled satisfactorily by verbal arguments alone, since these are often driven by opinion and lack a solid scientific backing," the authors write. "What is under debate is essentially an epidemiological problem: How do different gun control strategies affect the rate at which people become killed by attackers, and how can this rate be minimized?"

The duo reviewed available data stretching as far back as World War I, then drew up equations to compute whether policies ranging from a total firearm ban to "arm everyone" increase or decrease homicides. After running the numbers, they found that in more common domestic and one-on-one crimes, reduced legal gun availability – if properly enforced – is likelier to lower deaths. But in rare mass shootings, armed citizens might save lives if sufficiently trained to avoid accidentally shooting fleeing bystanders.

They note that data is missing that could strengthen their results. For instance, homeowners who used a weapon to stop a robbery might not make a report to police. "Stand your ground" laws being widely discussed in the wake of Trayvon Martin's killing could influence the parameters too. "Whether such laws better protect the public or increase deaths needs to be determined statistically," Wodarz said. "Do you have a greater chance of dying if you run or if you face your attacker with a weapon?"

The authors say key parts of their equations should be studied more closely: the fraction of offenders who illegally possess a gun, the statistical degree of protection provided by legal gun ownership, and the number of people who are legally carrying a gun when attacked. Comprehensive data in those areas, they say, could further aid the development and implementation of effective policies.

Federal funding for gun control research was essentially nonexistent for nearly two decades, but President Barack Obama in January labeled firearm deaths a public health crisis and ended the longstanding freeze. About 11,000 Americans die each year from gunshot homicides.

A large number of peer reviews - 11 in total - were solicited by journal editors; two or three are the norm. A wide array of opinions were expressed, ranging from enthusiastically positive and constructive to a critic who stated that scientific methods would never be useful in this area.

The authors were warned to be prepared for heated responses to their paper but believe it's critical to bring the best tools of research to the issue.

"If the current discussion could be steered toward science, rather than having a heated debate without much of a logical foundation, a big step forward toward saving lives would be achieved," they said.

Citation:
The arithmetic of gun control (2013, July 27)
retrieved 25 May 2019
from https://phys.org/news/2013-07-arithmetic-gun.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

User comments

Like the authors state, many factors affect the likely outcome of both policy and principle. I can't argue with the assertions of the author, but it's not important in my view regardless, because like many people, I believe constitutional rights trump the encroaching nanny-state and it's feminine inclinations. It's a little off the subject, but again I'm not arguing with the authors, but what do you readers think about the Presidents success as a guns and ammo salesman? 5 years and still going strong. I think he's sold more assault rifles than Mikhail Kalashnikov, and ammo.... It's breathtaking. The factories pumping out 9mm, 5.56mm, and .22 must be breaking records set during World War 2. I haven't seen those cartridges on Walmart shelves all year. Obama really deserves royalties from someone.

"Federal funding for gun control research was essentially nonexistent for nearly two decades, but President Barack Obama in January labeled firearm deaths a public health crisis and ended the longstanding freeze. About 11,000 Americans die each year from gunshot homicides."

Not if the funding is from a regime that wants to repeal the 2nd amendment.

It appears that the authors are positing that questions of human rights can be addressed satisfactorily via mathematics. It would be interesting to know what other human rights issues they have so explored and for those they have not, why not.

It would be interesting to know what other human rights issues they have so explored and for those they have not, why not.

The "why not" at the end makes wonder whether this is the "Unless they deal with ALL problems, they have no right to say something I perceive as criticism" variety of universal dismissal. Why would they need to justify not having applied their approach to the complete list of human rights issues? They have to start somewhere.

It appears that the authors are positing that questions of human rights can be addressed satisfactorily via mathematics. It would be interesting to know what other human rights issues they have so explored and for those they have not, why not.

I dont think they are. I think they mean that factual questions, like how different policies affect gun deaths, could be answered with mathemathics. Whether the policies themselves are acceptable or not is still subjective and not really a scientific question.

Not if the funding is from a regime that wants to repeal the 2nd amendment.

The Gun lobby isn't fighting that. They're fighting profit encroachment. The gun manufacturers don't want the potential of lawsuits from a faulty product, being on the hook for making weapons that don't misfire, can't be stolen and used by another, can't be operated by children, and so-on.

Killing these studies profits the gun lobby more than citizens. If you're all for gun profiteering on the blood of children, be my guest: Protect the status quo, protect the gun manufacturers from responsibility for a faulty product.

1. If every qualified adult was walking around with a concealed loaded handgun, nobody would have the guts to assault or rob anyone. Peace through deterrence. The police can't be everywhere so people have to learn to police themselves.

2. Gun laws only empower criminals because criminals don't follow the laws. Otherwise they wouldn't be criminals would they? Gun laws take away power from civilized law abiding citizens.

3. If guns are banned, it will only create a criminal laden black market for a product which is in demand. EG the Mexican drug trade or the Prohibition.

ronald reagan used an army of cost benefit economists to justify his policies. one if the mist beariful propoganda trends of the last 30 years is to appeal to self labeled intellecruals by appealling to 'rational argument' through the use of ' statistics. if the army of paid statisticians isnt enough of a tipoff that there is no motivation of 'rational discussion' being the basis for their funding, then please look at all the 'statisticians' that have been used by tobacco oil wallstreet mortgage industries to justify and prolong tge concealment of massive lies.

money to pay someone for a 'discussion' is the clue. follow the money and you will know why you are reall having a 'rational discussion'. control the topic in the spotlight and you control the show.

I would never have thought of that. Less guns. Less gun deaths. Genius.

I know. I know. Gun lovers are going to say that people well trained might stop mass killings. But even cops, witness the police mistakingly shooting civilians in Los Angeles last year, have a hard time shooting suspects or the intended under pressure.articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/09/.../la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210‎

So my genius comment. Less guns for everyone. Less gun deaths. I am a genius!!!

I didn't read the paper, only the article but another issue which would need to be addressed is that with the increasingly gun-phobic society, people are no longer trained and taught on proper gun safety since childhood as they used to be. This in the long term could lead to increased accidental shootings which may be an effect modifier on the one-on-one defense end of the statistics. Guns are inanimate objects, simple tools. Children used to learn gun safety in schools. Now 'gun' is a bad word. I feel this is the product of personal bias introduced into societal systems (such as the school system and media). The emphasis has been and continues to be in the wrong place. All political responses sound like those of a borderline personality disorder person. They split between complete ban or no restrictions at all. That is psychologically, politically, and rationally unsound.

I know. I know. Gun lovers are going to say that people well trained might stop mass killings. But even cops, witness the police mistakingly shooting civilians in Los Angeles last year, have a hard time shooting suspects or the intended under pressure.articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/09/.../la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210Ä�ď��ď��Ä�ď��

Cops are usually bad shooters. They spend almost no time at the shooting range. You're twenty times more likely to die at the hands of a government employee than a criminal

Children used to learn gun safety in schools. Now 'gun' is a bad word.

This is the symptom of a dysfunctional society where social standards are made by the plutocrats. For example, streets used to be like parks. Cars mingled with people and in any collusion the driver was treated like a terrorist. Then big auto companies peddled propaganda that the people were 'jays' meaning fools and THEY should be blamed when they were hit.

I'd say you're probably a million times more likely to be saved be a government employee than a random bystander with a gun.

You can say that on a science site only because the moderators are absent . People in Vegas would disagree with you. You probably are one of those who clap when Obama drones a school or one of your cannibals eats a raw heart in Syria

This is a mufti-dimensional problem. If you're going to address gun violence, you'll have to address ALL violence. Just because gun violence is reduced does not infer that ALL violence will be reduced. The perpetrators will simply switch to different weapons.

Don't forget that in Rwanda, the tool of genocide was nothing more than a machete. So the question one should include the question of how much violence was made possible by the availability of a firearm and conversely, how much was stopped by the presence of a firearm.

I would never have thought of that. Less guns. Less gun deaths. Genius

Fewer guns means more victims and more violent crime.

"But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

"In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677....The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609."http://www.dailym...aH95wJB1

Correct, but there is a significant portion of violence heavily skewed to the more serious end of the spectrum that is enabled entirely by easy access to legally purchased firearms.

And youre a liar.

"Violent crime...entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder, as well as crimes in which violence is the means to an end, (including criminal ends) such as robbery. Violent crimes include crimes committed with weapons. With the exception of rape (which accounts for 6% of all reported violent crimes), males are the primary victims of all forms of violent crime"

UK - "In 2010/11, 31 people per 1000"

US - "16.9 victimizations per 1000 persons"

-You might think it is preferable to be bludgeoned or stabbed as opposed to being shot, but the results are the same.

TheGhostofOtto1923 is talking utter crap (which is not surprising considering the nickname). Countries where guns are not widely available tend to have dramatically lower homicide rates than countries where they are. Case in point: U.S. homicide rate: 4.4/100 000. Netherlands: 1.1/100 000. Britain: 1.2/100 000. These are the official 2010 statistics from the UNOCD, so even the numbers Otto cites are incorrect.

TheGhostofOtto1923 is talking utter crap (which is not surprising considering the nickname). Countries where guns are not widely available tend to have dramatically lower homicide rates than countries where they are. Case in point: U.S. homicide rate: 4.4/100 000. Netherlands: 1.1/100 000. Britain: 1.2/100 000. These are the official 2010 statistics from the UNOCD, so even the numbers Otto cites are incorrect

No, homicide is one result of violent crime. So is paralysis and permanent brain damage. So is rape.

And those arent my figures. Britain is the MOST violent country in europe, and as the numbers I posted show, it is twice as violent per capita as the US.

Brits are unable to protect themselves and so are easier to victimize.

"Assault' means physical attack against the body of another person resulting in serious bodily injury; excluding indecent/sexual assault; threats and slapping/punching. 'Assault' leading to death should also be excluded."

"The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609. "

I would prefer living in a place with four times more gun deaths and SIX TIMES less overall crime, like Russia or the USA. Many of those gun deaths are dead criminals. Of course there will be more shootings with more guns, but if the right people are caught and crime is six times lower it is a good tradeoff. In Britain there are more knifings because knives are easily bought and improvised. A career criminal will always be armed. If you are unarmed, then you are fucked

@ThomasQuinn now you're resorting to nazis because you have no argument and revealing your true zionist agenda even though Israel requires two years conscription from everyone

I was referring to their adoption of Bismarckian tactics, which you are also employing. That doesn't make you a nazi, but it does mean you have something in common. kochevnik is just plain insane, as can be seen from his "Zionism" rant (I'm no particular friend of the Israeli government, btw. I think the country has a right to exist all right, but they sure do choose creepy maniacs to lead them), but you appear to have a faint acquaintance with reason. Therefore, please try to understand the following:1) You have shown nothing except that using the sub-category "assault" will yield a number favorable to your impression of the safety of your country. The fact taht you try to make Britain appear more violent than the U.S. is laughable to anyone who is familiar with both countries.2) Violent crime is universal. The more effective the weapons are that are at the disposal of those who wish to commit crime, the more violent the crimes. This is simply logic, nothing more or less.

Give me a pencil and a sheet of paper and I can prove anything you want me to. 60 million gun owners will not be denied their liberty. Very, very few legal gun owners ever have occasion to even point a gun at a criminal, but only a hypocrite will deny that they would feel safer walking down a dark alley if they or someone with them has a weapon. i.e.: "No atheists in fox holes" Look at Obama and all your politician and their gun toting body guards. I can't afford a body guard, can you. Do you live next door to a police station? How long from the time a home invasion happens to you before the police arrive? When your husband is laying dead on the floor or your wife and daughters are taken to another room or raped before your eyes will you wish you had the means to defend yourself? People who don't have the power to think are the result of our dumbed down educational system. Wake up and learn how to reason. Our founding fathers wrote the second amendment for a reason. Why?

After running the numbers, they found that in more common domestic and one-on-one crimes, reduced legal gun availability – if properly enforced – is likelier to lower deaths.

Wrap it up gun-failures.

IF properly enforced? And what does that even mean? That IF is a big IF and you're grasping for straws if you think surrendering personal responsibility on to the allusion that is government. When does government ever enforce something properly? By who's standards? Are Chicago crime laws enforced properly? Are DC crime laws enforced properly? People will just shrug off responsibility and call it someone else's problem if they aren't allowed to enforce themselves.

1) You have shown nothing except that using the sub-category "assault" will yield a number favorable to your impression of the safety of your country. The fact taht you try to make Britain appear more violent than the U.S. is laughable to anyone who is familiar with both countries.

I HAVE lived in both countries and England was a cesspool of violence. Stopping an intruder is a crime, especially if it hurts the robber's feelings. I know a career robber there. The police simply took away his toys leaving him with a scooter so he couldn't haul much. I saw men trafficking 12yo girls and nearby women were raped as the public watched. Hooligans carry knives in UK and they are off lightly so long as the victim lives

2) Violent crime is universal. The more effective the weapons are that are at the disposal of those who wish to commit crime, the more violent the crimes. This is simply logic, nothing more or less.

I'm pro-gun and own more than one, but I never understood this idea some people have that everyone carrying a gun would make everything safer or somehow keep people in line. Look at the middle east for example. Anyone can walk down to the bazaar and buy a machine gun or rocket launcher. How peaceful are the streets over there? Everyone carrying also means any conflict has the potential to turn into an armed conflict. Humans these days snap over nothing and feel justified killing or hurting someone for an insult or perceived slight. So when those conflicts inevitably arise, the aggrieved party will have to shoot first because he knows attacking someone will result in getting shot. Plus most people will not practice with their weapon, maintain it properly, or carry it responsibility. All of those things are much more of a hassle than they sound like, and people here can't even be bothered to exercise 30 minutes a week let alone train with their handgun.

Look at the middle east for example. Anyone can walk down to the bazaar and buy a machine gun or rocket launcher. How peaceful are the streets over there?

That's not a gun problem it's a religion problem. The religion advocates killing people over the smallest sleights. If killing is sanctioned as it is in those religions, then everyone will suffer. You can't have a society with millions of brainwashed fucktards destroying anything impure. ANY weapon in their hands is lethal. Even a cardboard cutter. The only truly safe place for them is a padded cell

Religion is a disease

Nations with conscription have a trained and armed populace which is probably why Switzerland is one of the safest places in the world

Let us examine the "Stand Your Ground" Law. This is a very good law. The rules before SYG was passed demanded that a homeowner, for example, on his/her own property, was required to flee their home and avoid confronting the perpetrator to avoid killing that perp or being killed. But the order to flee out one door while the perp is entering another door is unrealistic, UNLESS the homeowner is unarmed.However, the well-armed homeowner, on his own property or in a public place (sidewalk, parking lot, etc.) now has the option to stand his ground when a perp with criminal intent attempts to relieve the law-abiding individual of his/her life, property and his civil right of peaceful assembly and/or going about his daily life in peace.The unarmed individual/family has the option to run, but the criminal will most likely shoot them in the back to prevent them from becoming witnesses to the crime. The well-armed individual has the right to protect himself, family and property and others.

It is quite evident that these "liberal-inspired researchers" (and some here in the comment section) have no concern at all for the lives of men and women who are decent, law-abiding citizens who only wish to protect their lives, family and property from the lawless - whether such lawless individuals are criminally insane, or feeling entitled to another individual's goods. Such perpetrators have no sense of individual rights to life and property, except for their own, and they will have no qualms about denying some individual's civil rights because they do not recognize the civil rights of others. Therefore, it is necessary for the law-abiding individual to ensure his/her right to life, freedom and the pursuit of their own happiness by committing themselves to the survival and maintenance of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Stand Your Ground laws.

@ShotmanMasloDifferent policies have no effect on gun deaths. The criminal mind doesn't care about policy or the mathematics of whether we should have gun control or not. The criminal does not stop his actions to think whether or not he is playing fair and abiding by the rules of policy, mathematical or otherwise. He will carry out his plan no matter how many government funded studies require the observance of policy.The study appears to place the burden, not on the criminal, but on the law-abiding individual who happens to be armed and ready for any contingency, with regards to his ability of self-protection aka self-preservation. The burden should be set on the shoulders of the criminal whose actions necessitates another's actions of self-preservation, not the other way around. I find the Liberal "bleeding hearts" and their concern for the rights of the criminals quite offensive and disgusting. They usually change their tune when their loved ones are murdered and/or raped.

There is a stat regarding mass shooting incidents which are defined as ~4 or more victims. I don't recall the exact minimum number but it was significant because these were usually the case where the shooter was in a 'gun free' zone and no one was around to shoot back.

CIVIL RIGHTS: The law of the land says that we all may walk on the sidewalks and any other public place as law-abiding, civilized and respectful individuals who respect the civil rights of others. If we do not respect the rights of others, then we may be considered lawless and are subject to be harmed by others if we do not change our bad behavior.Thus, it is imperative that the U.S. government change its policy of hostility toward those of us citizens who wish to maintain the right of ownership of guns for self-protection. The repeal of "Stand Your Ground" would mean that criminals, thugs, flash mobs, the criminally insane, etc. would OWN the public places - and the civil rights of American citizens would be trampled on and many good people will fear walking along a street or sidewalk, and even driving their cars.

GUN CONTROL: The criminal mind will always find ways to kill and damage with whatever means available...even an iron pipe and still resulting in death.

GUN-FREE ZONE? An oxymoron, for sure. There is no such thing as a gun-free zone no matter how many laws are passed in places like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York City, Miami, Boston, London, Benghazi, Cairo, etc. etc.Such zones in the U.S. are run and controlled by Liberal/Socialist Democrats who coddle criminals because of their minority status and their race. Honest, law-abiding Blacks in those cities are just as scared of the criminals as anyone else, but they kept on voting for corrupt Black Democrat politicians anyway. Why? It all boils down to race and their mistrust of Whites (especially Conservatives). These are gun-free zones, except for Miami, Benghazi and Cairo.And yet, the statistics of deaths by guns, especially against Black children are incredibly high.While most Blacks were crying out about the death of Trayvon Martin, a 17 yr old Black kid in Chicago was gunned down because he did not want to join a gang. So who cries for the death of Darryl Green?

TheGhostofOtto1923: You really are desperate to spin this into some construct where you might remotely be conceived to be right.

You chose your nickname appropriately - nazi reasoning: the facts count, but you decide what the facts are.

Nazi reasoning would be the disarming of the public under false pretenses. such as what obama is trying to do. if not, then why change tactics and start calling gun control "gun safety". there are other issues I find disturbing as well, why concentrate statistical evidence on gun control, when we SHOULD be concentrating on CRIMINAL control? why not uphold existing laws and quit putting violent felons back on the street?

here is another thing that I would love to see: why don't the statistics on fatal shootings in the US take out criminal deaths? a criminal who is attempting to perform a felony gets killed, he is one of the deaths by gun listed, but how accurate does that really make the stats? I say they are NOT accurate. unless you can somehow differentiate between innocent victims (like a mistaken kid killed during a drive by) and a violent felon killed in the commission of a crime. the criminal does not deserve to muck up the stats. it throws off the numbers, and it was justifiable. our current administration seems to value the criminal element and THEIR rights much more than the law abiding citizen.

I heartily agree.And the criminal elements of the Black gangs in Chicago and other cities? While Obama wants to use "gun control" to disable law-abiding citizens, mostly of the White persuasion, from protecting themselves and their family from criminals, the policy in Chicago (and other cities) seems to be a policy of looking the other way when Black children are murdered by other Blacks. It's like 'meh, this always happens and we can't do much about it except investigate and talk to gang members (Rahm Emanuel's favorite line). And then it's the usual same-old same-old and nothing much comes of it.

no, I am not Obama_socks. just because someone happens to be on line at the same time and shares similar opinions, does not mean that they are the same person. a forensic analysis of the writing would prove that, but then you are just trying to piss people off. either that or you are working multiple log-in's in order to spew your special brand of stupid? which is it, Baka.... er, Bakoon.

How far from TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS? Legal GUNS can be ELECTRONIZED AND CONNECTED, have cameras, sensors, call drones, know where police is, swich bullets to paralyzing or marking, .. (imagine that gun tells you: no i wont shut cause only 5% of guys on the gunwatchforum where we posted picture minute ago say its justified). Why (in principle) not? When smartfons would be guns? Or maybe better statistics would be if govmnt promoted paralyzing and smoke/noise-making grenades (why shoot someone if you could alarm 5miles of neighbourhood)(or personal defensive micro-drone swarm)? Anyway ... why not technology instead of opinions? :)

"The UK is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America...Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK...total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa."

-The FACT that you so easily disregard them means your opinions on the issue are worthless.

BABOON/ghostofotto/frankherbert

@pussytard

I see you have overcome the shame of stupidity. How unfortunate. Where have you been? I hear catatonia is nice this time of year.

Please do not support important issues here at physorg. Your lying, flooding ignorance only weakens them. A synposis of your astonishing legacy can still be found on my profile page.

"Do you have a greater chance of dying if you run or if you face your attacker with a weapon?"

Maybe, maybe not, but if you face your attacker with a weapon I think the chance of the attacker dying go way up. (Just an opinion, nothing scientific about it, just common sense which seems to be lacking in this article,)

"Do you have a greater chance of dying if you run or if you face your attacker with a weapon?"

Maybe, maybe not, but if you face your attacker with a weapon I think the chance of the attacker dying go way up. (Just an opinion, nothing scientific about it, just common sense which seems to be lacking in this article,)

-bearly

Absolutely!! Common sense tells us that if the 'playing field' is even, then there's no need to run. The first one to run is the chicken and, if you're likely to get shot anyway, it's best to shoot first or pray that you don't get shot in such a way that you will die from your wounds. I remember an article about a Liberal news columnist who was always crying the blues over the perps and how unfair it was for them, and those horrible people who defended themselves with guns. So one day she was attacked by some punks in the city park and raped and beaten half to death. Well, she changed her tune after her experience and became a militant for self-defense.

There's obviously too much opposition to radical ideas, from making guns available to whoever wants them without accountability, to removing the 2nd amendment from the American Constitution altogether. The latter would be the more civilized, but gun lovers are unfortunately not civilized, but rather a bunch of dumb-assed pussies who let their bullets do the talking for them. IQ's are inversely proportional to defense of the 2nd amendment. The more vocal the opposition to gun control, the lower one's IQ. It's a fact.

One way to approach the problem (yes, problem) of gun ownership is to attach a mandatory insurance policy to the purchase of every single gun, premium payments being the responsibility of the gun purchaser. That would make the insurance companies the "responsible" lobbyists for gun control. It wold be very interesting to see how that would work out.

...making guns available to whoever wants them without accountability, to removing the 2nd amendment from the American Constitution altogether. The latter would be the more civilized, but gun lovers are unfortunately not civilized, but rather a bunch of dumb-assed pussies who let their bullets do the talking for them. IQ's are inversely proportional to defense of the 2nd amendment. The more vocal the opposition to gun control, the lower one's IQ. It's a fact.

-badrunner

You poor sissified schmuck...where do you get the idea that gun owners are not held accountable for their actions? Perhaps you completely missed the George Zimmerman trial and thought that he was not held accountable even though Zimmerman's head was being smashed into the concrete BEFORE he fired his weapon. Maybe you would've preferred his brain oozing out of his skull first rather than attempting to preserve his life? If you're ever held up or beaten and raped, just smile at the perp who wants to kill you.

The latter would be the more civilized,...(removal of the 2nd amendment) but gun lovers are unfortunately not civilized, but rather a bunch of dumb-assed pussies who let their bullets do the talking for them. IQ's are inversely proportional to defense of the 2nd amendment. The more vocal the opposition to gun control, the lower one's IQ. It's a fact.

baudrunner - Not only has there never been a study about the "apparent" I.Q. of a gun owner and their vocal opposition to gun removal, but it appears that the more Urban the person speaking is, the more they feel that gun ownership is not needed. this is a PERSONAL observation. Some gun owners are NOT civilized. I am one of them. I live where people like YOU only dream about living, and when you visit, you tend to bring ARMED escorts. if you don't, you die, mostly out of ignorance and foolishness. Disarmament is purely a political move in order to exert control. you don't see any of the politicians throwing down their arms.

baudrunner - to continue... you do not see politicians getting rid of all their armed security, either. in fact, with the laws they have been proposing, they leave allowances for politicians to keep their arms. if the 2nd amendment is removed, then the peoplea representatives should be disarmed along with everyone else, but they will not let THAT happen. Just because you feel you are morally and intellectually superior, does not give YOU the right to tell others how to live. if YOU don't like firearms, then DOWNT have them, but leave those of us who need them alone. I live off of my firearm. I eat by it. it is a functional tool. that is what most people keep forgetting. IT IS A TOOL.a tool does NOT feel emotion. it is functional. all this evil/wrong FEELING is attached by PEOPLE... like you, baudrunner. leave your prejudice out of it, and leave us to our own devices. I don't NEED a weapon to defend myself against PEOPLE (especially city folk), but it does make things easier. and I

continued - I don't NEED a weapon to defend myself against PEOPLE (especially city folk), but it does make things easier. and I am getting old... too old to roll around on the ground beating up criminals. I have used my firearm against people without discharging it. But that is not always the case. defense of life sometimes requires extreme measures. and I have also had to do that. it is ugly, but it is a fact of life. if you have never been in the situation, you cannot intelligently argue against it. you do NOT know how you would react in the same circumstances. I know many who said they could not kill someone, but they have HAD to, and they live with that. Don't make decisions about some this based upon some utopian vision. Think, instead, about the REAL WORLD. it can be a very ugly place. Just because you think the world is all sunshine and roses does not make it true, and your vision of utopia is yours, not everyone's. Just as my vision is not yours.

Anyone who thinks that strict gun laws mean government oppression needs to check into a mental health clinic immediately.

Nearly all of Europe has banned guns, and it's brought us nothing but declining crime rates. In fact, those countries that do have guns (except ultra-conservative Switzerland) are now either considering or are already changing their laws, because banning guns WORKS. Some day, the backwards parts of America will discover this.

Here's a thought: why don't you start by banning guns in any area with more than 20 people per square mile?

Baka_baboon, bakoon... whatever = troll. I don't capitalize cause I am lazy, and I am not a very good typist. I also have large fingers that are used to different work and it makes it difficult to type. ever actually had to work, baka-baboon?

instead of making attacks, how about a well thought out argument. something that makes a statement. I know it is hard for someone with no high school diploma, but try! maybe you can drag yourself out of your hole you live in. education is the key. keep hitting the books. there is ability in us all.

Anyone who thinks that strict gun laws mean government oppression needs to check into a mental health clinic immediately.

You should keep your deranged opinions to yourself. American statistics are the main argument of firearms advocates. According to the U.S. Justice Department, 34% of all criminals were wounded or detained by armed civilians, while 40% have altogether given up an idea of an attack for fear of reciprocal fire. In those states that allow citizens to carry concealed arms, the level of murders is lower by 33 %, and of robberies by 37%.

@ThomasQuinnCongratulations on living on a continent where the criminal mind has been completely wiped out and everything around you is hunkydory to your satisfaction. Keep on dreaming your happy dreams.

Here in the United States, where there are many different races, cultures, agendas, levels of education and mindsets, the reality is different from yours. Those of us who are decent and law-abiding citizens understand perfectly well that this melting pot we call our country can never be entirely safe and free from criminal intentions, no matter what race or culture the criminal comes from or their circumstances. Because of that knowledge, we understand that it is sheer folly to pretend that we live in a country where nothing and nobody can harm us and our loved ones. To that end, we prepare to fight for our very lives and the lives and health of our loved ones, if need be, with the aid of guns that will quickly dispatch an attempt to take our lives and our legally-owned property.

All the government laws against law-abiding Americans owning and carrying concealed guns have no effect on the criminal intentions of those persons who wish to commit injury, theft, death and damage to the innocent people whose only crime is to go about their own business and lives in a peaceful fashion. The lawless and outlaws of this country are never concerned about all the laws against gun ownership, because they choose to commit a crime and they feel that it is their RIGHT to do so.

So if you think that gun control laws in America will stop crime and prevent good people from being victimized and murdered by those with criminal intentions just because laws were passed to prevent law-abiding people from owning and carrying guns, you don't understand the criminal mindset.

You don't understand the hurt and damage and death that criminals inflict on people. You don't understand how criminals exonerate themselves of blame for many reasons. You have no idea at all.

Hey Blotto, how's your mama's pussy. I hear you've been giving her a good lickin and she still keeps on tickin, aye? Here puss puss. Oh BTW, how's your boyfriend Ritchieguy? Haven't seen him talking about you in physorg in a long time. Do you and old Ritchie still sucksuck together in your favorite motel he told us about? Or did you stick a knife in him so he would shut up about you sucking him off like 2 good gays?I've got plenty of guns and hunting rifles and I practice regularly.How is your mental condition...your DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER coming along? I see you still have it and I see you are even more paranoid than before.And why did you lie to ThomasQuinn, saying you're named after Otto Preminger, you fucking turd. Everyone knows that you're named after the Nazi, Otto Skorzeny

That's fairly easy to figure out. They're only 2 inches deep and 20 inches long. Boomerang shaped. I would say that molten metal was poured into each V and then when the form had cooled enough, the hot metal was thrust into the water from the spring.

Oh, and whatever happened to your sockpuppet, FrankHerbert? Did you replace it with JohnGee and BAKOON/BABOON? How many other sockpuppets have you made besides the previous ones that I revealed in my profile?You never did find my two socks that I made just to see if you could find me, and I posted almost every day. But you sure did a number on innocent newcomers to physorg, so much that I believe they either left or changed their user name...TheghostofOttoSkorzeny (Adolf Hitler's bodyguard)

Further down on the same page are pictures providing proof of large life forms that are semi-transparent. Those are NOT geology and are not a trick of light and shadow. Mars has life.

The helmeted being's boots cast shadows and the one "female" with the "headdress is partially behind a rock so that you can't see her full figure. Her headdress casts a shadow.It appears that all 5 figures are semi-transparent and are well adapted to the harsh environment of Mars. Because they're semitransparent, the rock behind them shows a a bit through their bodies.

I don't know any (Pirouette), and it's apparent that FrankHerbert is back again as BAKOON. The puppetmaster Theghostofotto1923 must be dancing around going back and forth from one sockpuppet to another, then back again to Theghostofotto.

BTW Blotto...what is it about my posts that you disagree with? Tell us all about it.Or is it just that you're pissed off because I said it and you didn't?

You do the same things to antialias_physorg because you're JEALOUS and you can't stand for anyone to know more than you do without looking it up in Wiki. You fucking idiot loser

WTF...and I thought this thread was about mathematics and gun control!!!

stupid tardboy also believes in giant glass martians.

Further down on the same page are pictures providing proof of large life forms that are semi-transparent. Those are NOT geology and are not a trick of light and shadow. Mars has life.

The helmeted being's boots cast shadows and the one "female" with the "headdress is partially behind a rock so that you can't see her full figure. Her headdress casts a shadow.It appears that all 5 figures are semi-transparent and are well adapted to the harsh environment of Mars. Because they're semitransparent, the rock behind them shows a a bit through their bodies.

That's fairly easy to figure out. They're only 2 inches deep and 20 inches long. Boomerang shaped. I would say that molten metal was poured into each V and then when the form had cooled enough, the hot metal was thrust into the water from the spring.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people (Pirouette) make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes.

dumbshit obama_socks has DISSOCIATIVE PERSONALITY DISORDER and each persona is dumber than the last. captain stupid is just the most recent. this idiot actually thinks glass martians flew to ancient jerusalem to make lead boomerangs. durrrrrrr

From what I read in that thread, the very first mention of "lead boomerang" is only by FrankHerbert. Pirouette never mentioned "lead boomerangs" except for denying later on that she or he ever said it. But FrankHerbert/Theghostofotto1923 made up that story to get rid of Pirouette from posting in physorg because Theghostofotto1923 believes himself to be the owner of Phys.org and only people who get his approval are allowed to stay and comment. What a sicko.

Moderators, isn't it time for you guys to rid this science website of Theghostofotto1923 and all his sockpuppets forever? You are STILL allowing his mentally ill and irrational mind to control these threads and annoy people who want to comment on the topics of the threads. I just might write to Phys.org advertisers about the mentally ill person practically running this website into the ground and ruining good discussions such as the ones above.

Estevan57 - I am not a sock puppet. i am a mountain man living in the seriously remote backwoods. i am pretty much apathetic to the internal bickering. in fact, i find it pretty hilarious sometimes. (and though the picture on my profile is NOT me, it actually looks a lot like me, except i am more stocky than the pic).

i have noticed that when the arguments don't tend to go in the direction of the Anti-Gun ownership, the arguments degrade into personal attacks or accusations of "sock puppets", etc. reminds me of the circus: send in the clowns. so, who is the ring leader?

dumbshit obama_socks has DISSOCIATIVE PERSONALITY DISORDER and each persona is dumber than the last. captain stupid is just the most recent. this idiot actually thinks glass martians flew to ancient jerusalem to make lead boomerangs. durrrrrrr

where do you get your far fetched ideas? When have i ever mentioned that i believed in lead boomerangs or glass martians? your arguments are completely fabricated, much like a ten year old kid. you don't know a THING about me, other than what i put on my profile.

this really DOES remind me of sending in the clowns! you get angry because the general thread and the arguments herein don't go in the way you think they should, so you throw a tantrum? start name calling? it is almost like watching congress attempt to do a Monty Python sketch... you know it is supposed to be funny, but it ends up being ever so sad and pathetic...

What kind of person saves a comments section post from 2011 and tries to use it as some sort of "evidence" against someone else years later? Get real, who cares

Hey, arent you that gay guy who waits every day for me to post and then downrates every post I make? Arent you the gay guy whose posts are ALL about me? Every single one? Sure you are.

This is not the way to gain my affections esai.

i am a mountain man living in the seriously remote backwoods.

Must be hard commuting to NASA and back eh?

Nearly all of Europe has banned guns, and it's brought us nothing but declining crime rates

More lies tommy. I gave you the facts on britain. You ought to acknowledge them. Gun bans brought on a corresponding rise in violent crime.

Antigun homicide numbers routinely include justifiable homicide, homicide by cop, and gang activity, something else you gunphobes fail to mention. Bangers will always have guns. We can be thankful they are not full-auto (except in the UK)

OMG I just visited stumpys profile. He says he actually worked for NASA.

Hey did you and pirouette/ritchieguy/russkiye/pussycat_eyes/obama_socks/hillary_clampett know each other? Tell me - did/does she really make $250k/yr as an aerospace engineer (contract)? Or is that an exaggeration?

"Must be hard commuting to NASA and back eh?"Ghost-i do not commute. i do not work for NASA. i am retired from the military. and from the Fire Department. i am NOT some sock-puppet of someone. Just because i recently joined does not mean i am another user.

OMG I just visited stumpys profile. He says he actually worked for NASA.

Hey did you and pirouette/ritchieguy/russkiye/pussycat_eyes/obama_socks/hillary_clampett know each other? Tell me - did/does she really make $250k/yr as an aerospace engineer (contract)? Or is that an exaggeration?

in the Air Force, some of their Firefighters were subcontracted to NASA during a shuttle launch to man the TAAL sites. Trans Atlantic Abort Launch. in case the shuttle had to abort, the sites had to be manned. i was a professional paramedic firefighter and for 4 years i manned these TAAL sites. from 1992-1996 i manned TAAL Moron, or TAAL Zaragosa, even Morocco once. i am retired from the military and the fire department. no i don't know everyone at NASA.and i don't know your friend or how much he makes.

@Estevan and CaptainStumpyIt is almost 8PM here in Munich and I am quite tired after a long day of traveling and waiting in airports for my flights to depart. I'm in Munich for a business meeting for negotiations between my company and theirs. I plan to order my dinner soon and get a good night's rest to be up at 6AM.As you are aware by now, BAKOON is an offshoot of FrankHerbert, one of the sockpuppets that Theghostofotto1923 wields to clobber his perceived enemies on this website. TheghostofBlotto's various personalities/identities are imbued with the unique characteristics of Blotto's smack-down artists that reside collectively in his mind. Just as in stories like "The Three Faces of Eve" for instance, each character emerges with a separate identity (and name), but each one carries with it the same speech patterns and vitriolic patterns as each one's predecessor, if any.In the case of Blotto's sockpuppet, BAKOOM...it's speech pattern is identical to that of the puppet FrankHerbert

@Estevan and CaptainStumpyIt saddens me that you both (and many other innocents) have been dragged into the very fertile field of the results of Blotto's DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER and Paranoia, extreme jealousy, and megalomania regarding Blotto's self-styled ruler of who may or may not post in these threads.It has been well know for years that Blotto (Theghostofotto1923) tries to give the impression that he is popular when he 'talks' to his sockpuppets where they sometimes argue AGAINST Blotto's presentation of his ideas. They argue back and forth, and newcomers sometimes get the impression that it is two people arguing with each other. But it is really only GhostofBlotto arguing with himself.It is laughable, highly amusing to read such an exchange, but it is necessary to understand that it is just one person doing all the talking.

Pussytard if youre so smart and successful as a NASA aerospace engineer (contract), why is it that you didnt know how satellites are designed? How is it you couldnt understand such a simple concept as zero growth? Why is it you could possibly think that one geyser could melt 100 sq mi of antarctic ice??

Is this the sort of acumen our tax dollars are paying for???

And why do you think that successful, articulate NASA aerospace engineers who make $250k/yr would ever say things like

Hey Blotto, how's your mama's pussy. I hear you've been giving her a good lickin and she still keeps on tickin, aye? Here puss puss

???

Like I say, anyone can read a synopsis of your profound decrepitude on my profile page. And if you are indeed the looney in the bin that you truly appear to be, sorry, no apology is forthcoming. As I say, your handlers should NOT be allowing you access to the internet as it clearly is only upsetting you.

I hope that what I say here will imprint on you both, and all the others who were and are and will be victimized by Theghostofotto1923 and his attack-dog sockpuppets, and that you will be able to shake off Blotto's diatribes against you personally. It is now well known that Blotto cannot stand anyone who displays high intelligence and well-grounded ideas, mainly because Blotto gets ideas from Google searches before he attempts to tackle a topic. Blotto has no formal education in all topics presented on Physorg or science sites, but he pretends to be all-knowledgeable. He only presents ideas mostly after 'copy and paste' from Search engines, and then commenting on such information. That is Blotto's 'modus operandi'. If anyone questions what he says, Blotto gets into a tirade of ad hominem insults and then lets loose his other identities to further attack the victim.

I say, do NOT be victimized by TheghostofBlotto. Ignore it. Keep to the topic and enjoy

Satellites? Hmmm...I can't recall ever commenting about satellites. Where is the link?However, I DO know about guns for self-protection.As usual, TheghostofOttoSkorzeny (Hitler's bodyguard and Blotto's user namesake) pulls more shit out of his ass.Once again, I will explain "zero growth". Blotto seems to believe that zero means more births. The problem with the concept of "zero growth" which Blotto ascribes to, is that there can never be a law in America that prevents sex between a man and a woman that results in pregnancy. The consensus that the births of 2 babies to each couple to replace that couple when they die may result in zero growth FOR THAT COUPLE. But other couples may have 3, 4, 5 or more babies who will add to the population. The parents may not die until a very advanced age and may continue to have even more live births.The concept of zero growth assumes that the whole of any given population, as a collective, is willing to have only 2 live births per couple. contd

When a man and woman have one child, it adds to the population by a factor of 1.If they have a second live birth, that adds to the population by a factor of 2. When the children grow up and produce two more live births from each new couple, then it adds to the population by a factor of 4 live births. When those children grow up and procreate, it becomes a factor of 8 and so on with each generation. The growth factor is not zero until all preceding generations have died including the parents and only the 8 live births are left alive. But of those 8, if they also procreate, it adds more to the population of that ONE family as a factor of 16. Multiply that by millions of couples and their descendants and the original factor of 2 live births per couple has now added enormously to the population.

The only way to maintain the concept of "Zero Growth" is to euthanize the 2 parents of each 2 live births of each generation so that they cannot further reproduce. But even that does not add up to zero growth, because their 2 live births will themselves reproduce 2 more live births from each of the 2 original live births who became one of the 2 new parents/couples. This is how populations grow and exceed resources. The only other way to circumvent population growth is to have only 1 child per couple and then kill off its parents so that only one person remains instead of 3 in that particular family group. I had said in the thread regarding that topic that for zero growth to be, any children from a couple would have to wait for their 2 parents to die before procreating 2 more live births, in order to maintain zero growth. But Blotto said that it would mean no births until the old people died first.Well, that's what zero growth means - the death of parents and grandparents makes room.

Satellites? Hmmm...I can't recall ever commenting about satellites. Where is the link?

I thought a NASA asstroengineer would have known that the Webb was a satellite. Guess not...

That's FOUR MORE YEARS, BLOTTO...your desperate, evil little man. There is PLENTY OF TIME for the needed equipment to be added on [to the Webb telescope; another gross misperception according to REAL NASA engineers], you filthy lying piece of shiit. DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE YOU STICK YOUR FOOT UP YOUR ASS AGAIN

E-mail the story

The arithmetic of gun control

Note

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose.
The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Your message

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

Your Privacy

This site uses cookies to assist with navigation, analyse your use of our services, and provide content from third parties.
By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy
and Terms of Use.